8 ms·

All these accusations of cheating without any concrete proof are really worrying to me. I've read a few of these threads now, and not once have I seen any actua

All these accusations of cheating without any concrete proof are really worrying to me. I've read a few of these threads now, and not once have I seen any actual, real, explicit evidence for cheating. It looks very similar to the vote rigging claims we're seeing a lot more of recently in the U.S. Don't like the outcome? Just blame your opponent of cheating! No need to show any _real_ proof - just make up some vague claims of what _could_ have happened! And just keep repeating it. And this all seems to working pretty well - THAT is the scary thing Obviously none of this applies in the case of the fisherman, who seem to have been caught red-handed.

latortuga 4y ago
The person Carlsen accused of cheating has a documented and admitted history of it. Officials literally found weights inside the fish. Both of those are in this story.
- greggsy 4y ago
  The video is damming
- joekrill 4y ago
  > The person Carlsen accused of cheating has a documented and admitted history of it. So what? Just because someone has cheated in the past does not in any way prove that they've cheated in this particular case. It only proves they've cheated in the past. Is it suspicious? Sure. But any accusations of cheating are still pure speculation. > Officials literally found weights inside the fish. Both of those are in this story. And I specifically mentioned this in my comment.
  - threatofrain 4y ago
    > So what? Getting caught for cheating has an impact on credibility. Credibility is a big deal and a hard problem. The boy who cried wolf is not a story of no wolves. Are you surprised that cheating impacts credibility? In a court of law we might have standards like preponderance of evidence or reasonable doubt. In everyday human relations everyone is free to develop their own theories of credibility and to act upon their freedoms accordingly. You are free to judge whether Microsoft is trustworthy even without proof that they will betray your trust in the future, which nobody really knows.
    - ryandrake 4y ago
      Neither lack of credibility nor a history of cheating is evidence of cheating.
      - threatofrain 4y ago
        Evidence is the tool by which people attempt to get an edge over uncertainty. Lacking medical credibility is not proof that you're medically foolish, but it's certainly evidence. Conversely, having medical credibility is not proof that your doctor's plan is medically wise, but it's certainly evidence. It's your call if you wish ignore to medical credibility when evaluating your doctor's advice. Perhaps you'll engage in a discussion about how their medical credibility is not adequate evidence, but at that point, isn't it time to get a doctor you find credible?
  - mylons 4y ago
    statistical analysis of Hans play indicates he’s cheating, especially against Magnus’ style. your comments indicate you lack any depth in poker or chess.
    - roflyear 4y ago
      This isn't true at all.
      - mylons 4y ago
        Hans makes the most +EV plays against unconventional Magnus openings. He’s either the greatest chess player alive, (and like Robbi can’t even explain his game, and admitted to cheating in the past) or he’s cheating. i’m happy to bet quite a bit of money that Hans is a nobody in 5 years in chess. what evidence do you have for your position?
        whimsicalism 4y ago
        If you think making engine moves at the level Hans is at is evidence that he is cheating, I think you are just not very well informed about chess. > He’s either the greatest chess player alive Ridiculous, nothing about his play suggests he's the greatest chess player alive.
        mylons 4y ago
        how do you defend Hans, then? you’re just doubting what i’m saying without substance
        whimsicalism 4y ago
        The burden is to show that Hans is cheating OTB. I don't really know whether he is cheating OTB, although I think it is unlikely - but AFAIK there hasn't really been any statistical evidence of Hans cheating OTB and I'm not really sure what such evidence would even look like for a super GM who one would expect to routinely play engine moves.
- Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
  > The person Carlsen accused of cheating has a documented and admitted history of it. So what? He was 16 yo kid who did a stupid thing playing online. How exactly does that relate to top-level over the board tournament with anti-cheating measures which organizers deemed sufficient to stop cheating? So far there is nothing but allegations.
  - joshuamorton 4y ago
    He's currently 19, and there are apparently more recent cheating things per chess.com. This isn't like "he cheated long ago and has made amends", it's guy whose cheated recently, and whose coach was also banned due to a history of cheating was found to be acting and playing suspiciously well in recent otb tournaments". Maybe it's nothing, but it's not as nothing as you're making it out to be.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
      16 and 19 is a far greater age difference than it would seem by numbers only. Online play and over the board play are greatly different too. In sum, we have no hard evidence, and many allegations. I'd suggest ignoring allegations until we see some more substantial evidence.
  - Pyramus 4y ago
    > He was 16 yo kid who did a stupid thing playing online. If chess.com is to be believed this is not the case, and they have informed Niemann about it. According to them Niemann has cheated more often and more recently than he admitted, and lied about it when he made his statement. > How exactly does that relate to top-level over the board tournament with anti-cheating measures which organizers deemed sufficient Professional chess has a huge cheating problem: It is very easy to cheat, chess tournaments are under-funded, and anti-cheating measures are expensive. There are worlds between, say, chess and cycling, or chess cheating and card counting.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
      chess.com has a lot of false positives in their cheating detection method, and they are in business relationship with Carlsen, so any testimony they migth give will likely be biased. I am actually very surprised to see so many people throwing away any notion of a due process and calling for immediate harsh punishment like lifetime ban.
- roflyear 4y ago
  Not of OTB cheating which is another thing entirely.
- jlportx 4y ago
  Niemann has admitted to cheating online on chess.com before 2020, like at least 50 other titled players. Niemann has denied ever cheating over the board. After the win against Carlsen, chess.com removed him from one of their online tournaments, and a couple of chess.com adjacent streamers insinuated the online cheating. Under that pressure, Niemann mentioned a coordinated attack and admitted to to cheating at the age of 12 and 16, but not in prize money tournaments. To see how easy it goes online, here is a video of Carlsen taking a move from Howell during a prize money tournament in Lichess: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NrOv8hxN6g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NrOv8hxN6g It can't be compared to deliberately using an engine, but clearly the standards are different online. chess.com has announced that it will release an additional investigation into Niemann soon. The involvement of an online company into an OTB tournament is unprecedented and comes after the takeover of the "Play Magnus" group. chess.com also released a private cheating conversation with Dlugy, from whom Niemann had taken lessons a long time ago. So, out of the 50 cases only those who are "involved" in a win against Carlsen are being targeted. I assume that chess.com will keep the rest of the files for future "use". FIDE, the real official organization, is investigating as well but will probably not find any OTB cheating cases.
friedman23 4y ago
Finding evidence is very difficult. A year or two ago there was an infamous case with a man named Mike Postle. There was 0 hard evidence of him cheating but his decision making was so statistically improbable that the entire poker community is certain that he cheated. These players, especially in poker absolutely need to be paranoid or they will be robbed. At a certain point we are going to need to subject suspicious players to cavity searches.
- joekrill 4y ago
  > Finding evidence is very difficult. That doesn't make it right to accuse people of cheating without any evidence beyond "well a _normal_ person wouldn't have done something like this, so they must be cheating!".
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    It's not a Crown court and he's not being accused of a crime - it doesn't haven't to be beyond all reasonable doubt. If someone's acting weird at your event you can just go off your gut if you want to - your event.
    - roflyear 4y ago
      We're ruining the guys life and career. Magnus has nothing beyond "I feel" statements. If he said "I saw him messing with something in his pocket" it would at least be something. But we don't have that.
      - jstx1 4y ago
        > Magnus has nothing beyond "I feel" statements. It's much more nuanced than this. Magnus said that there's more he'd like to say but he'd want Hans' permission to speak openly - https://twitter.com/magnuscarlsen/status/1574482694406565888 https://twitter.com/magnuscarlsen/status/1574482694406565888 Just because he can't immedially dump all the information that he has doesn't mean that he's obliged to keep playing chess against someone he believes is cheating.
_the_inflator 4y ago
There is a lot of money involved. So I presume there is cheating involved, similar to doping. Also the cheating schemes are hard to understand sometimes. Here is an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_sorting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_sorting
jstx1 4y ago
You're asking for more than just evidence though, you're asking for concrete proof which is very different. You can have evidence that changes your belief - people acting suspiciously their behaviour being consistent with cheating, lying, changing their story, having history of doing this in the past - all of this is perfectly valid evidence that can change your own belief about what's happening, and you should be able to speak to speak about it. Imagine that we're flipping a coin and it keeps coming up heads every time, and I make a statement that I don't think the coin is fair. By your standards I shouldn't be able to speak until we examine the coin directly and no number of further flipping will convince you that the coin is biased (because it's technically possible that a fair coin does this too). Well, sometimes in real life we can't weigh/measure/scan the coin directly, we can only make judgments based on the flips that come out and we should be able to say that they look fishy.
- joekrill 4y ago
  > You're asking for more than just evidence though, you're asking for concrete proof which is very different. There is neither of these, though. There is only people speculating that they MUST be cheating because they didn't behave exactly as they were expected to. > By your standards I shouldn't be able to speak until we examine the coin directly [...] I never made any such statement or made and indication of specific "standards". We should absolutely look at the coin if it's behaving this way. But we can't just conjecture that it must be weighted with zero evidence of that.
  - jstx1 4y ago
    > But we can't just conjecture that it must be weighted with zero evidence of that. I don't think any of the accusation that have been brought up in this thread have been with zero evidence. I think we have very different understanding of what's evidence and how much of it sufficient to speak up, and we're kind of talking past each other (the last part seems very likely).
- mind-blight 4y ago
  I think that's hyperbolic. Evidence doesn't have to be concrete or prove anything. It just has to convince a reasonable person that the thing being claimed may have happened. But, I have yet to see any evidence besides Carlson's claims of cheating. I'm not even looking for "how", but I'd like to at least hear what Carlson thought was so strange in the match that it could imply cheating. Him showing up for a single play of a rematch and then quitting after the first move seems mostly like a tantrum. I'd be much not sympathetic to something like "these 4 moves we're so it of the ordinary that I can't see a way he would have taken them besides computer assistance"
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
gretch 4y ago
I see what you are saying and understand the point. But there should be a balance somewhere. Lance Armstrong cheated in cycling and won 7 championships. The fact that he came out as a cheater later absolutely demolished the integrity of the whole sport. And I feel really bad for anyone who competed honestly all that time with zero chance of getting anything done given that the field is rife is cheaters. So that extreme is also pretty devastating and chess lovers done want chess to fall into that state either
- jurassic 4y ago
  Cheating in chess seems somehow worse than what Armstrong did. There could be a version of cycling where everybody dopes and it becomes a level playing field --- there's still strategy in the rides, they still suffer up the climbs, etc. Doped athletes are still incredible to watch. But in chess if you're outsourcing decision-making to the algorithm... why even have human players at all?
  - Consultant32452 4y ago
    I'm amazed people still believe there's such a thing as "clean" professional sports. I assume everyone is doping. I agree with your assessment about Armstrong vs outsourcing decision-making. It wouldn't surprise/bother me to find out chess players are taking ritalin or whatever to increase their focus, but using a computer is troublesome. That would be like Armstrong riding an electric bike.
mylons 4y ago
you’re insane if you think there’s no proof in the chess and poker. you have no basis to make the judgement and are yet another arm chair expert on HN. Robbi is a liar. she embellished her career, and her poker game. there’s no way any player would give the money back after a “bad” play like that. she can’t even talk about the hand — she doesn’t remember her cards correctly. the list of tells is endless if you have any depth of knowledge in the game.
- stale2002 4y ago
  Then show the video of her cheating. Show the metal detectors, finding a hidden device that transmits signals to her, about what the other person's cards are. That is evidence. Nothing that you mentioned is actual evidence of cheating.
  - mylons 4y ago
    a player at the board could be signaling her. she might be able to see his cards. she removed a ring after the hand in question. why does she have to have a device? why does it have to be metal? you’re creating a straw man. if you’re in a whiteboard interview and a candidate can’t explain their solution they regurgitated, do you think they know anything about that solution?
    - stale2002 4y ago
      So then no, you have seen no device giving her signals from the outside. You see no accomplis telling her what her opponents cards are. That would be actual evidence. Give the name of the person who was giving her signals, and then use the video footage, from the 30 different cameras that were pointed at everyone. Show the video, of the hand signal. Directly say which person, in the room, was giving her info on her opponents cards. And explain exactly how it was done, with video evidence. > why does she have to have a device? why does it have to be metal? I was giving an example of what evidence would actually look like.
      - mylons 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
luckylion 4y ago
> I've read a few of these threads now, and not once have I seen any actual, real, explicit evidence for cheating. You usually don't get these with elections either, unless the cheaters are lazy and just add 1000 votes in a 100 citizen area. Usually, you'll see weird things that are very implausible which will lead to investigations, i.e. a perceived battle ground state going 99:1 to one side. It's possible, there's no clear evidence of cheating (yet), but it's extremely unlikely.
ransom1538 4y ago
I think she should hand over her ring over to the casino. The one she removed after the amazing call. She isn't obligated to, but, that is so weird to remove a ring under the table - it would help stop doubt.
- wsinks 4y ago
  https://itsgame7.com/exact-moment-poker-fans-think-robbi-jade-lew-cheated-video/amp/ https://itsgame7.com/exact-moment-poker-fans-think-robbi-jad... So.. is 3:45 the point where people think Robbi smacks the table and removes the ring? It looks to me that the slap just moved the ring to the side. At 3:58 There’s something that appears to be the red ring still on her hand. Not to mention that before that moment, I can only make out one ring on her middle finger, and that ring band is still on her finger after. I imagine they’ll look into that ring during their investigation. It’ll be interesting to see what comes of it. This is definitely quite the statistical anomaly.
alasdair_ 4y ago
The thing that really gets me is that crazy events like this happen sometimes. I mean, here is Stu Ungar winning insanely by calling with 10 high: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzgRZ_AKVfg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzgRZ_AKVfg No one accused Stu of cheating.
- noonesays 4y ago
  > No one accused Stu of cheating. https://www.pokernetwork.com/forums/main-noticeboard/28541-stu-ungar-confirmed-cheat-claims-1997-wsop-main-event-win.html https://www.pokernetwork.com/forums/main-noticeboard/28541-s... https://www.pgt.com/news/did-stu-ungar-cheat-at-the-wsop/ https://www.pgt.com/news/did-stu-ungar-cheat-at-the-wsop/

latortuga 4y ago

The person Carlsen accused of cheating has a documented and admitted history of it. Officials literally found weights inside the fish. Both of those are in this story.

greggsy 4y ago
The video is damming
joekrill 4y ago
> The person Carlsen accused of cheating has a documented and admitted history of it. So what? Just because someone has cheated in the past does not in any way prove that they've cheated in this particular case. It only proves they've cheated in the past. Is it suspicious? Sure. But any accusations of cheating are still pure speculation. > Officials literally found weights inside the fish. Both of those are in this story. And I specifically mentioned this in my comment.
- threatofrain 4y ago
  > So what? Getting caught for cheating has an impact on credibility. Credibility is a big deal and a hard problem. The boy who cried wolf is not a story of no wolves. Are you surprised that cheating impacts credibility? In a court of law we might have standards like preponderance of evidence or reasonable doubt. In everyday human relations everyone is free to develop their own theories of credibility and to act upon their freedoms accordingly. You are free to judge whether Microsoft is trustworthy even without proof that they will betray your trust in the future, which nobody really knows.
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    Neither lack of credibility nor a history of cheating is evidence of cheating.
    - threatofrain 4y ago
      Evidence is the tool by which people attempt to get an edge over uncertainty. Lacking medical credibility is not proof that you're medically foolish, but it's certainly evidence. Conversely, having medical credibility is not proof that your doctor's plan is medically wise, but it's certainly evidence. It's your call if you wish ignore to medical credibility when evaluating your doctor's advice. Perhaps you'll engage in a discussion about how their medical credibility is not adequate evidence, but at that point, isn't it time to get a doctor you find credible?
- mylons 4y ago
  statistical analysis of Hans play indicates he’s cheating, especially against Magnus’ style. your comments indicate you lack any depth in poker or chess.
  - roflyear 4y ago
    This isn't true at all.
    - mylons 4y ago
      Hans makes the most +EV plays against unconventional Magnus openings. He’s either the greatest chess player alive, (and like Robbi can’t even explain his game, and admitted to cheating in the past) or he’s cheating. i’m happy to bet quite a bit of money that Hans is a nobody in 5 years in chess. what evidence do you have for your position?
      - whimsicalism 4y ago
        If you think making engine moves at the level Hans is at is evidence that he is cheating, I think you are just not very well informed about chess. > He’s either the greatest chess player alive Ridiculous, nothing about his play suggests he's the greatest chess player alive.
        mylons 4y ago
        how do you defend Hans, then? you’re just doubting what i’m saying without substance
        whimsicalism 4y ago
        The burden is to show that Hans is cheating OTB. I don't really know whether he is cheating OTB, although I think it is unlikely - but AFAIK there hasn't really been any statistical evidence of Hans cheating OTB and I'm not really sure what such evidence would even look like for a super GM who one would expect to routinely play engine moves.
Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
> The person Carlsen accused of cheating has a documented and admitted history of it. So what? He was 16 yo kid who did a stupid thing playing online. How exactly does that relate to top-level over the board tournament with anti-cheating measures which organizers deemed sufficient to stop cheating? So far there is nothing but allegations.
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  He's currently 19, and there are apparently more recent cheating things per chess.com. This isn't like "he cheated long ago and has made amends", it's guy whose cheated recently, and whose coach was also banned due to a history of cheating was found to be acting and playing suspiciously well in recent otb tournaments". Maybe it's nothing, but it's not as nothing as you're making it out to be.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
    16 and 19 is a far greater age difference than it would seem by numbers only. Online play and over the board play are greatly different too. In sum, we have no hard evidence, and many allegations. I'd suggest ignoring allegations until we see some more substantial evidence.
- Pyramus 4y ago
  > He was 16 yo kid who did a stupid thing playing online. If chess.com is to be believed this is not the case, and they have informed Niemann about it. According to them Niemann has cheated more often and more recently than he admitted, and lied about it when he made his statement. > How exactly does that relate to top-level over the board tournament with anti-cheating measures which organizers deemed sufficient Professional chess has a huge cheating problem: It is very easy to cheat, chess tournaments are under-funded, and anti-cheating measures are expensive. There are worlds between, say, chess and cycling, or chess cheating and card counting.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
    chess.com has a lot of false positives in their cheating detection method, and they are in business relationship with Carlsen, so any testimony they migth give will likely be biased. I am actually very surprised to see so many people throwing away any notion of a due process and calling for immediate harsh punishment like lifetime ban.
roflyear 4y ago
Not of OTB cheating which is another thing entirely.
jlportx 4y ago
Niemann has admitted to cheating online on chess.com before 2020, like at least 50 other titled players. Niemann has denied ever cheating over the board. After the win against Carlsen, chess.com removed him from one of their online tournaments, and a couple of chess.com adjacent streamers insinuated the online cheating. Under that pressure, Niemann mentioned a coordinated attack and admitted to to cheating at the age of 12 and 16, but not in prize money tournaments. To see how easy it goes online, here is a video of Carlsen taking a move from Howell during a prize money tournament in Lichess: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NrOv8hxN6g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NrOv8hxN6g It can't be compared to deliberately using an engine, but clearly the standards are different online. chess.com has announced that it will release an additional investigation into Niemann soon. The involvement of an online company into an OTB tournament is unprecedented and comes after the takeover of the "Play Magnus" group. chess.com also released a private cheating conversation with Dlugy, from whom Niemann had taken lessons a long time ago. So, out of the 50 cases only those who are "involved" in a win against Carlsen are being targeted. I assume that chess.com will keep the rest of the files for future "use". FIDE, the real official organization, is investigating as well but will probably not find any OTB cheating cases.

friedman23 4y ago

Finding evidence is very difficult. A year or two ago there was an infamous case with a man named Mike Postle. There was 0 hard evidence of him cheating but his decision making was so statistically improbable that the entire poker community is certain that he cheated. These players, especially in poker absolutely need to be paranoid or they will be robbed. At a certain point we are going to need to subject suspicious players to cavity searches.

joekrill 4y ago
> Finding evidence is very difficult. That doesn't make it right to accuse people of cheating without any evidence beyond "well a _normal_ person wouldn't have done something like this, so they must be cheating!".
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  It's not a Crown court and he's not being accused of a crime - it doesn't haven't to be beyond all reasonable doubt. If someone's acting weird at your event you can just go off your gut if you want to - your event.
  - roflyear 4y ago
    We're ruining the guys life and career. Magnus has nothing beyond "I feel" statements. If he said "I saw him messing with something in his pocket" it would at least be something. But we don't have that.
    - jstx1 4y ago
      > Magnus has nothing beyond "I feel" statements. It's much more nuanced than this. Magnus said that there's more he'd like to say but he'd want Hans' permission to speak openly - https://twitter.com/magnuscarlsen/status/1574482694406565888 https://twitter.com/magnuscarlsen/status/1574482694406565888 Just because he can't immedially dump all the information that he has doesn't mean that he's obliged to keep playing chess against someone he believes is cheating.

_the_inflator 4y ago

There is a lot of money involved. So I presume there is cheating involved, similar to doping. Also the cheating schemes are hard to understand sometimes. Here is an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_sorting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_sorting

jstx1 4y ago

You're asking for more than just evidence though, you're asking for concrete proof which is very different. You can have evidence that changes your belief - people acting suspiciously their behaviour being consistent with cheating, lying, changing their story, having history of doing this in the past - all of this is perfectly valid evidence that can change your own belief about what's happening, and you should be able to speak to speak about it. Imagine that we're flipping a coin and it keeps coming up heads every time, and I make a statement that I don't think the coin is fair. By your standards I shouldn't be able to speak until we examine the coin directly and no number of further flipping will convince you that the coin is biased (because it's technically possible that a fair coin does this too). Well, sometimes in real life we can't weigh/measure/scan the coin directly, we can only make judgments based on the flips that come out and we should be able to say that they look fishy.

joekrill 4y ago
> You're asking for more than just evidence though, you're asking for concrete proof which is very different. There is neither of these, though. There is only people speculating that they MUST be cheating because they didn't behave exactly as they were expected to. > By your standards I shouldn't be able to speak until we examine the coin directly [...] I never made any such statement or made and indication of specific "standards". We should absolutely look at the coin if it's behaving this way. But we can't just conjecture that it must be weighted with zero evidence of that.
- jstx1 4y ago
  > But we can't just conjecture that it must be weighted with zero evidence of that. I don't think any of the accusation that have been brought up in this thread have been with zero evidence. I think we have very different understanding of what's evidence and how much of it sufficient to speak up, and we're kind of talking past each other (the last part seems very likely).
mind-blight 4y ago
I think that's hyperbolic. Evidence doesn't have to be concrete or prove anything. It just has to convince a reasonable person that the thing being claimed may have happened. But, I have yet to see any evidence besides Carlson's claims of cheating. I'm not even looking for "how", but I'd like to at least hear what Carlson thought was so strange in the match that it could imply cheating. Him showing up for a single play of a rematch and then quitting after the first move seems mostly like a tantrum. I'd be much not sympathetic to something like "these 4 moves we're so it of the ordinary that I can't see a way he would have taken them besides computer assistance"

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

gretch 4y ago

I see what you are saying and understand the point. But there should be a balance somewhere. Lance Armstrong cheated in cycling and won 7 championships. The fact that he came out as a cheater later absolutely demolished the integrity of the whole sport. And I feel really bad for anyone who competed honestly all that time with zero chance of getting anything done given that the field is rife is cheaters. So that extreme is also pretty devastating and chess lovers done want chess to fall into that state either

jurassic 4y ago
Cheating in chess seems somehow worse than what Armstrong did. There could be a version of cycling where everybody dopes and it becomes a level playing field --- there's still strategy in the rides, they still suffer up the climbs, etc. Doped athletes are still incredible to watch. But in chess if you're outsourcing decision-making to the algorithm... why even have human players at all?
- Consultant32452 4y ago
  I'm amazed people still believe there's such a thing as "clean" professional sports. I assume everyone is doping. I agree with your assessment about Armstrong vs outsourcing decision-making. It wouldn't surprise/bother me to find out chess players are taking ritalin or whatever to increase their focus, but using a computer is troublesome. That would be like Armstrong riding an electric bike.

mylons 4y ago

you’re insane if you think there’s no proof in the chess and poker. you have no basis to make the judgement and are yet another arm chair expert on HN. Robbi is a liar. she embellished her career, and her poker game. there’s no way any player would give the money back after a “bad” play like that. she can’t even talk about the hand — she doesn’t remember her cards correctly. the list of tells is endless if you have any depth of knowledge in the game.

stale2002 4y ago
Then show the video of her cheating. Show the metal detectors, finding a hidden device that transmits signals to her, about what the other person's cards are. That is evidence. Nothing that you mentioned is actual evidence of cheating.
- mylons 4y ago
  a player at the board could be signaling her. she might be able to see his cards. she removed a ring after the hand in question. why does she have to have a device? why does it have to be metal? you’re creating a straw man. if you’re in a whiteboard interview and a candidate can’t explain their solution they regurgitated, do you think they know anything about that solution?
  - stale2002 4y ago
    So then no, you have seen no device giving her signals from the outside. You see no accomplis telling her what her opponents cards are. That would be actual evidence. Give the name of the person who was giving her signals, and then use the video footage, from the 30 different cameras that were pointed at everyone. Show the video, of the hand signal. Directly say which person, in the room, was giving her info on her opponents cards. And explain exactly how it was done, with video evidence. > why does she have to have a device? why does it have to be metal? I was giving an example of what evidence would actually look like.
    - mylons 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

luckylion 4y ago

> I've read a few of these threads now, and not once have I seen any actual, real, explicit evidence for cheating. You usually don't get these with elections either, unless the cheaters are lazy and just add 1000 votes in a 100 citizen area. Usually, you'll see weird things that are very implausible which will lead to investigations, i.e. a perceived battle ground state going 99:1 to one side. It's possible, there's no clear evidence of cheating (yet), but it's extremely unlikely.

ransom1538 4y ago

I think she should hand over her ring over to the casino. The one she removed after the amazing call. She isn't obligated to, but, that is so weird to remove a ring under the table - it would help stop doubt.

wsinks 4y ago
https://itsgame7.com/exact-moment-poker-fans-think-robbi-jade-lew-cheated-video/amp/ https://itsgame7.com/exact-moment-poker-fans-think-robbi-jad... So.. is 3:45 the point where people think Robbi smacks the table and removes the ring? It looks to me that the slap just moved the ring to the side. At 3:58 There’s something that appears to be the red ring still on her hand. Not to mention that before that moment, I can only make out one ring on her middle finger, and that ring band is still on her finger after. I imagine they’ll look into that ring during their investigation. It’ll be interesting to see what comes of it. This is definitely quite the statistical anomaly.

alasdair_ 4y ago

The thing that really gets me is that crazy events like this happen sometimes. I mean, here is Stu Ungar winning insanely by calling with 10 high: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzgRZ_AKVfg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzgRZ_AKVfg No one accused Stu of cheating.

noonesays 4y ago
> No one accused Stu of cheating. https://www.pokernetwork.com/forums/main-noticeboard/28541-stu-ungar-confirmed-cheat-claims-1997-wsop-main-event-win.html https://www.pokernetwork.com/forums/main-noticeboard/28541-s... https://www.pgt.com/news/did-stu-ungar-cheat-at-the-wsop/ https://www.pgt.com/news/did-stu-ungar-cheat-at-the-wsop/